Nuclear Tests Case (Australia & New Zealand v. France)
Procedural History:
Proceeding before the International Court of Justice.
Overview:
Australia and New Zealand (P) demanded that France (D) cease atmospheric nuclear tests in the South Pacific. France (D) completed a series of nuclear tests in the South Pacific. Australia and New Zealand (P) applied to the !.C.). demanding that France (D) cease testing immediately. While the case was pending, France (D) announced the series of tests was complete and that it did not plan any further such tests. France (D) moved to dismiss the applications.
Issue:
May declarations made by way of unilateral acts have the effect of creating legal obligations?
Rule:
declerations made by way of unilateral acts may have the effect of creating legal obligations.
Analysis:
The unilateral statements made by French authorities were first communicated to the government of Australia. To have legal effect there was no need tor the statements to be directed to any particular state. The general nature and characteristics of the statements alone were relevant for evaluation of their legal implications.
Outcome:
Yes. Declarations made by way of unilateral acts may have the effect of creating legal obligations. The sole relevant question is whether the language employed in any given declaration reveals a clear intention. One of the basic principles governing the creation and performance of legal obligations is the principle of good faith. The statements made by the President of the French Republic must be held to constitute an engagement of the State in regard to the circumstances and intention with which they were made. The statements made by the French authorities are therefore relevant and legally binding. Applications dismissed.
Procedural History:
Proceeding before the International Court of Justice.
Overview:
Australia and New Zealand (P) demanded that France (D) cease atmospheric nuclear tests in the South Pacific. France (D) completed a series of nuclear tests in the South Pacific. Australia and New Zealand (P) applied to the !.C.). demanding that France (D) cease testing immediately. While the case was pending, France (D) announced the series of tests was complete and that it did not plan any further such tests. France (D) moved to dismiss the applications.
Issue:
May declarations made by way of unilateral acts have the effect of creating legal obligations?
Rule:
declerations made by way of unilateral acts may have the effect of creating legal obligations.
Analysis:
The unilateral statements made by French authorities were first communicated to the government of Australia. To have legal effect there was no need tor the statements to be directed to any particular state. The general nature and characteristics of the statements alone were relevant for evaluation of their legal implications.
Outcome:
Yes. Declarations made by way of unilateral acts may have the effect of creating legal obligations. The sole relevant question is whether the language employed in any given declaration reveals a clear intention. One of the basic principles governing the creation and performance of legal obligations is the principle of good faith. The statements made by the President of the French Republic must be held to constitute an engagement of the State in regard to the circumstances and intention with which they were made. The statements made by the French authorities are therefore relevant and legally binding. Applications dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment